Electrical Sensitivity: Arthur Firstenberg
and Susan Molloy
The founder and director of the Cellular Phone Taskforce
(Firstenberg) and cofounder of the Environmental Health Network (Molloy)
provide a concise, referenced article on this emerging condition. (From
Latitudes, Volume 5 #4)
What Americans Need to Know about Radiation (or
EMR) from Wireless Communications: Margaret Meade Glaser
The author contends that Europeons and Russians know
more than Americans about this important issue—and she tells you where you can
find the facts you need.
Consumer Reports
on Cell Phone safety: February 2003 issue
One of the first mainstream publications to question
cell phone safety. Read the article!
The Dark Side of Wireless Technology: Sheila
Rogers, editor of Latitudes
A heartbreaking account of how a cell phone tower placed
next to a family’s farm devastated the health of a Midwest family and their
farm animals.
A Possible Association Between
Fetal/neonatal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the
Increased Incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders
Robert C. Kane, Ph.D, of The Associated
Bioelectromagnetics Technologists, Blanchardville, Wisconsin, presents a
theory that developmental exposures to electromagnetic radiation may help
explain the dramatic recent increase in autism.
A Physician Petition: the Freiburger Appeal
Doctors unite to express concern for health effects of
mobile phone technology.
Electrical Sensitivity
Arthur Firstenberg and
Susan Molloy
The 750,000-watt Doppler weather radar at Fort
Dix, New Jersey, overlooks the Township of Brick. Why is that of interest to
anyone but meteorologists? It’s not, except that eight out of every 1000
children born in Brick since the radar station was built in 1994 are autistic.
The Brick Township Autism Investigation (1), conducted in 1998 by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, uncovered 60 cases of autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) among children aged three through ten in this town of 77,000
residents. As in much of the rest of the world, autism is increasing here. But
the prevalence of both ASD and classic autism in Brick Township were found to
be dramatically higher than normal in the 3-to-5-year-old age group, i.e.,
those born since 1994.
Forward-thinking educators and parents have done a good job in recent years of
tackling the difficult issues involved in protecting sensitive children from
chemical contaminants, dyes, preservatives, and allergens in their food,
medications, classrooms, and homes. However, an additional burden has been
overlooked and even ridiculed as untenable as a factor in many children’s
profound neurological and behavioral problems. Some readers may react with
disbelief to our suggestion that the Fort Dix Doppler might qualify for a
place on the “radar screen” of those scientists who are puzzled by the local
epidemic of autism. (2)
The authors of this article are adults who are made extremely sick, sometimes
incapacitated, from exposure to “normal” amounts of electromagnetic energy.
We’ve seen some children respond as we do, as their well-meaning parents and
teachers equip them with newer, faster, more powerful “safety” and
communication devices, oblivious to the potential consequences for their
children’s health and development. We’re not oblivious to these consequences
because we ourselves respond directly and immediately, with debilitating pain,
confusion, and neurological symptoms, to cell phones, cordless phones,
computers, televisions, and other normal elements of today’s home, work and
school environments. And we are in increasingly good company.
Gro Harlem Brundtland is director-general of the World Health Organization. A
medical doctor with a master’s degree in public health, as well as former
prime minister of Norway, she has recently been speaking in public about her
own sensitivity to computers, cordless phones and cell phones. Not only has
she warned parents against allowing their children to use cell phones or
microwave ovens, but she said that she herself has become so sensitive to the
radiation that she does not allow anyone to enter
her office with a cell phone turned on. “If you enter my office, you are
invited by me. No one who is invited would like to give me headaches,” she
said at a news conference in Oslo on July
1, 2002, where she was attending an international conference on cancer.
Awakening to the potential of electricity to affect children’s health and
development can be initially disheartening, because electromagnetic pollution
is so inescapable, and its sources so often are “conveniences” for which we’ve
eagerly expended considerable resources. It can also be empowering, because it
gives parents and practitioners an additional tool and offers a new range of
potential factors that may be influencing seemingly intractable health or
behavior problems.
Both of us went to school and were graduated from college before personal
computers, cell phones, the Internet, and everything that goes along with them
even existed. As environmentally sensitive people, we feel lucky to have grown
up before today’s conditions became the norm.
What Can We Do?
Computers in the classroom are practically
unquestioned now, and that is fine for the durable. However, our society
should provide computer-6.00 classrooms for those vulnerable children for whom
this is a necessary and effective accommodation.
In
schools where wireless computers—or regular computers with wireless
keyboards/mice—are installed, even a computer-6.00 classroom will not be an
effective intervention for a child whose Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is triggered or exacerbated by
electromagnetic radiation. This is because the microwave frequencies used by
these technologies, identical to the frequencies used in a microwave oven,
pass through walls and do not respect the boundaries of classrooms.
What we suggest runs counter to the prevailing
educational trend, which is to throw more and more computer-enabled devices at
physically and developmentally disabled children in an effort to improve their
functioning, without any consideration of the potential effects of the extra
radiation on their developing nervous systems. When adult populations were
sampled within the last year for the prevalence of electrical sensitivity,
estimates by researchers varied from 1.5% (Stockholm, Sweden) to 3.3% (state
of California) to 7% (Marin County, California) of the population. One patient
group in Germany puts the number as high as 15% of the German population.
Nobody knows exactly, because this is an isolating, disabling, and ridiculed
problem that is still in the public health “closet,” along with most of its
victims. Children are the most vulnerable segment of the population. They are
also the most unaware of the potential effects of this invisible and largely
unacknowledged pollutant coming from equipment that is so fervently sought by
their peers and esteemed by their parents and teachers.
Medical facilities, also, are sites of electronics’ proliferation. The growing
field of medical telemetry uses wireless technology to monitor the vital signs
of hospital patients. But also, in hospitals, nursing homes, day care and
elder care facilities, mental health institutions and group homes, remote
monitoring of patients is in increasing use, not only for medical purposes,
but simply to cut back on personnel costs.
New automobiles have much larger electromagnetic fields than they had ten or
twenty years ago. This is due to multiple computer-controlled operating
systems, GPS satellite-tracking devices, digital dashboard displays, and,
commonly, a cell phone constantly charging in the car.
The situation is not hopeless.
At home, every parent can easily do the
following experiment: tonight, before your family goes to bed, unplug all of
these items you may have in your home: the TV, the computer, the base unit of
the cordless phone, the entertainment center, and the baby monitor. Notice the
quality of everyone’s sleep, how you feel in the morning on awakening, and
note whether you and your child seem calmer. Appliances should be completely
unplugged, not just turned off at a surge protector (which itself may be a
source of electromagnetic fields).
If
your child has a motorized wheelchair, don’t plug it in overnight next to his
or her bed. Often these children are especially vulnerable as they may already
have epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or other mobility-impairing conditions.
Electric floor or ceiling heaters, fluorescent lights, dimmer switches, and
electronic security systems can all produce problematic electromagnetic
fields. Finding all the sources and eliminating or avoiding them requires
patience and may be time-consuming but is not necessarily difficult or
expensive. Your basic measuring tools are a $40 magnetic field meter, or “gaussmeter,”
and a cheap (poorer quality is better for this purpose) battery-operated AM
radio. When the gaussmeter reads 0.2 milligauss or less, and the radio, when
tuned between stations, remains silent (does not buzz or give loud static),
you have a relatively calm environment—especially important in the sleeping
area. These two measuring devices will not detect the very high frequency
radiation produced by cordless phones, wireless computers, baby monitors,
remote controls for appliances, radio-controlled toys, and other wireless
equipment. We recommend eliminating wireless technology from the environment
altogether.
Many homes will have ambient magnetic fields that cannot be reduced to 0.2
milligauss because of factors outside your control, most commonly nearby power
lines and transformers. Neighbors’ activities may also be a factor. But
reducing exposures to the extent possible within the home may still have a
significant effect, especially on neurological or behavioral problems in
developing children. Exposures outside our own control, such as from the
street, a radar station or cell tower, at school, or in hospitals and medical
facilities, can be dealt with effectively only on a societal level. We have a
long way to go before these problems are given the serious attention they
deserve.
Ironically, some of our societal problems, such as school violence and
kidnappings of children—even before 9/11 added to our worries—are being used
as reasons to attach more cell phones to our kids for their safety and our
peace of mind. But these very devices, and the millions of towers and antennas
that make their use possible, expose all of us to a level of radiation that we
know (from studies and painful firsthand experience) can contribute to the
anxiety, depression, irritability, impulsivity, confusion, and general unrest
that feed the very concerns which led to the need for all those cell phones in
the first place. This can begin to change as more of us turn them off and
experience the difference.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Bertrand, J. et al., Prevalence of Autism
in a United States Population: The Brick Township, New Jersey Investigation,
Pediatrics 108:1155-1161 (2001).
2. The Doppler appears to be the latest
addition to a number of radar facilities in the area. McGuire Air Force Base,
Fort Dix Military Reservation, and Lakehurst Naval Air Warfare Center are all
located west of Brick. Military jets from those bases, equipped with powerful
radars of their own, also fly over Brick on their way out to sea.
SUGGESTED READING:
George Carlo, Cell Phones: Invisible
Hazards in the Wireless Age, Carroll & Graf, New York, 2001.
Jane M. Healy, Failure to Connect: How
Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds—and What We Can Do About It, Simon &
Schuster, New York, 1998.
B. Blake Levit,
ed., Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?, New
Century Publishing, Sheffield, MA, 2000.
Lucinda Grant, The Electrical Sensitivity
Handbook, Weldon Publishing, Prescott, AZ, 1995.
Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden, The Body
Electric: Electro-magnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow,
New York, 1985.
** Electromagnetic field (EMF) meters may be
obtained from Alpha Lab, 1280 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84101,
(800)-769-3754 Less EMF, Inc., 26 Valley View Lane, Ghent, NY 12075, (888)
LESS-EMF.
About
the authors:
Arthur
Firstenberg
is founder and director of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, a nonprofit
organization that disseminates information about electromagnetic radiation and
advocates for electrically sensitive people. He is editor of the Taskforce’s
publication, No Place to Hide, and the author of Microwaving Our
Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution.
After graduating
Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University in 1971 with a B.A. in mathematics, he
went to medical school from 1978 to 1982. Injury by x-ray overdose cut short
his career. Firstenberg explains that after receiving about 50 diagnostic
x-rays during extensive dental work, he became sensitive to high-powered
equipment in the hospitals where he worked. “I could literally feel the
radiation from the equipment; it made me weak and dizzy, but I kept working.
After several months I collapsed. I was 31 and no one knew the cause of my
illness. I was bedridden for about three months and at first I was not sure if
I would survive.”
Firstenberg’s
symptoms included a slow heartbeat, chest pain, extreme shortness of breath on
exertion, and weight loss. By reading Eastern European literature on the
subject, he eventually discovered that he had the symptoms of radio wave
sickness. He later learned that any type of electromagnetic field may provoke
similar illness in sensitive people, which commonly manifests with nausea,
dizziness, headache, irritability, insomnia, and difficulty with memory and
concentration. He also gradually became chemically hypersensitive.
His therapeutic
approach is strict avoidance. At home, he has no computer, no television, no
wireless equipment, no microwave, and uses only incandescent lighting. He
moved cross-country to Mendocino, California which has minimal electrical
pollution, and he is symptom-6.00 as long as he avoids exposure.
As is often the
case in advocacy organizations, Firstenberg’s personal experience led him to
study the condition that plagued him. He is now an international spokesperson
and advisor on the subject of electrical sensitivity (ES). He can be contacted
by phone at (707) 937-3990 or mail: P.O. Box 1337, Mendocino, CA 95460.
Susan Molloy
has an MA in disability policy and provides referrals and troubleshooting for
people with symptoms provoked by environmental exposures. She is cofounder of
the Environmental Health Network (EHN) of California and edited EHN’s
newsletter for 11 years. She served as chair of the Independent Living Council
in Arizona and works at New Horizons Independent Living Center in Prescott
Valley. She works from home due to her inability to withstand electromagnetic
exposure, and uses a custom-shielded computer provided by Arizona
Rehabilitation Services Administration.
Molloy has a
history of allergies since childhood and was hospitalized with chemical
sensitivities at age 31. ES symptoms emerged shortly after this. “When I go
under power lines or fluorescent lights it feels like a blow to the top of my
head,” she explains. Asked if she could run errands, Molloy explains, “I can
go into stores and other buildings. It’s getting back out that’s the problem.
I tend to lose coordination and would often be stumbling if I didn’t use a
wheelchair. I get disoriented and my speech is also affected.”
Professional-grade ear protectors help soften the impact of auditory
hypersensitivity to motor noises. She feels that living in the desert, where
she keeps appliances to a minimum, has given her more stamina.
“I’d like to
think that Arthur and I are just special cases, that people can stand back and
distance themselves from our difficulties. I’d like to think that others won’t
suffer similar problems. But we know better. The numbers are growing, and no
one is listening.” She can be reached at (928) 536-4625 or susanm@cybertrails.com.
Back to top of page
What Americans Need to Know about Radiation
(or EMR) from Wireless Communications
Margaret Meade Glaser
Chicago, Illinois
EMR Network (Board of Directors)
www.emrnetwork.org
I was gratified
that you included the topic of electromagnetic effects on biology,
particularly from high frequencies used in wireless transmissions, in
Latitudes (Vol. 5, #4). What Americans need to know, and what they are not
being told, is that three out of four independent (non-industry sponsored)
research studies worldwide are showing biological effects from low-level,
nonionizing radiation similar to that used in wireless communications. These
are called "nonthermal effects" because they occur at levels too low to cause
tissue heating. The telecom industry, and the FCC's safe exposure guidelines,
recognize only thermal (heating) effects. That means that exposures at
intensity (power) levels below that threshold are officially being considered
"safe" while the research is suggesting otherwise.
For clarity's sake,
the frequency range of nonionizing radiation used in wireless communications
is referred to as "radiofrequency/microwave radiation" or RF/MW. Microwave
ovens get their name from the fact that they use this type of radiation to
cook food (you could call this an example of a thermal effect). Radar
frequencies are also in this range.
While the FCC
maintains that its guidelines are protective, and indeed may be heading toward
relaxing them significantly in the near future, that is not the position that
was put forth by a federal interagency workgroup of nonionizing radiation
experts. In a letter to a standards setting committee in 1999 (1), they
outlined fourteen points which they believed needed to be addressed before any
FCC guidelines could be deemed credible and sufficiently protective of the
public. Nothing was done with these recommendations.
In letters dated July and September 2002, scientists from the Radiation
Protection
Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency (2) stated that they are
concerned about the burgeoning exposure of the public to nonionizing
radiation, and that claims that the FCC guidelines are protective of all
possible mechanisms of damage are unjustified. Do you think a wireless-happy
public has any idea of this?
If this were all just theoretical and we had to wait years to see if there
were any measurable effect, that would be one thing. However, I have talked to
many down-to-earth, normal, professional and nonprofessional people who on
their own have noticed headaches, dizziness, ear ringing, pain, and/or other
symptoms when they use their cell or PCS phones. I just heard from a young
man working in a telecom broadband department that he has fielded about 10
calls of this sort in the three months he has been there, and he is not even
in the wireless department.
Since October, over a hundred doctors in Germany have signed a document
stating that they are seeing increased health problems among patients related
to cell phone use and chronic exposure to radiation from cell towers and
antennas (3). In France, a first study was completed this past year
correlating health symptoms with cell tower proximity (4). Clearly, something
is going on.
If you look at the history of research on nonionizing
radiation (the energy waves below the frequencies of visible light on the
electromagnetic spectrum), you will see that nonthermal effects were first
reported decades ago, but were deemed to be research mistakes. Over time, we
have learned just how much the soviets knew about these effects as evidenced
by their having beamed the U. S. embassy in Moscow with low levels of this
radiation several decades ago. In fact, many in the embassy were found to have
developed serious health conditions.You can read about this in Nicholas
Steneck's 1986 book, "The Microwave Debate."
In the past twelve years there have been hundreds of studies showing these
nonthermal effects--- such as DNA damage and nonrepair, opening of the
blood-brain barrier (allowing toxins and pathogens to reach the brain),
lowered immunity, decreased melatonin levels, effects on stress proteins
(indicating cell damage), formation of micronuclei (aberrations in cell nuclei
which are often markers for cancer), changes in calcium metabolism affecting
communication between cells, changes in brainwave patterns as seen on EEG's,
plus effects observed on many different systems of the body.
What is not clear is the degree to which these effects are cumulative given
chronic exposure, and whether they are indeed linked to major health problems
like cancer and neurological conditions. The bioeffects seen are, however,
plausible precursors to such conditions, and some evidence suggests there may
be an association. Even conservative researchers who have witnessed and
studied nonthermal bioeffects say that this radiation is a "probable" cause of
health problems.
Right now, many schools are financially strapped, and
the promise of a monthly check in exchange for leasing a bit of space on the
property or building for antennas seems very attractive. (This is also true
of hospitals, office buildings, apartment buildings, churches, etc.). There
is a big push for educational achievement right now that is leading schools
that can afford it to get wireless internet computer networks installed, some
of which transmit microwaves all day long. When children go home, many use
cell phones (and cordless phones, which while lower power, also emit
radiation) and may live in the close vicinity of cell towers and
building-mounted antennas. Some may have their bedrooms over wireless
remote-read utility meters. Even the "second-hand smoke" of others' use of
wireless devices and phones can be affecting them.
Since children are more vulnerable to this radiation, because their bodies are
still developing and the radiation can penetrate them more deeply, where is it
going to end for them? Will their bodies be able to handle all this, so
foreign to the radiation environment in which we humans evolved? This is a
serious question.
Some countries discourage the use of wireless devices by children. And some
prohibit the placement of antennas near schools and day care
centers. Meanwhile, in the U.S. it is actually illegal for zoning boards to
consider possible health risks when deciding where to place mobile phone
antennas. Thanks to the Telecom Act of 1996, such considerations are preempted
by our federal government in order to give maximum 6.00dom and opportunity to
telecom companies. Some communities have been sued when trying to fight this.
The Vermont delegation, with support from some other members of Congress, has
recently introduced bills to reverse this ruling (5). It will take enormous
support to offset the influence of telecom money and pass these bills.
I urge your Advisory Board members and other
professionals to become familiar with this issue, and to help inform
others. Some web sites providing information on the unheard side of this story
are:
www.EMRNetwork.org
www.wave-guide.org
www.energyfields.org
www.tassie.net.au/emfacts/mobiles/children.html
www.electric-words.com
References:
(1) June 1999 letter to the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers
(IEEE) from the Radiofrequency Inter-Agency Work Group (RFIAWG). See link at
www.emrnetwork.org under "Press Releases: 8/12/02"
(2) July
2002 letter to Janet Newton from Norbert Hankin, Scientist, Radiation
Protection Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to
a letter to Administrator Christie Whitman. See above URL for (1). Also
September 2002 letter to Margaret M. Glaser from Frank Marcinowski, Chief of
the Division in response to a letter to Administrator Whitman (not posted).
(3)
October 2002, the Freiburger Appeal. See
www.emrnetwork.org/news/IGUMED_english.pdf
(4) R.
Santini study published in "Pathologie Biologie." See
www.emrnetwork.org/research/santini_pathbio_eng.pdf
(5) Local Control of Cellular Towers Act (S3103)
sponsored by Sen. Leahy,
Jeffords, Murray and Dodd, and (HR5631) sponsored by Cong. Sanders, Tancredo,
Shays and Davis.
www.emrnetwork.org/action/30oct_02_fact_sheet.pdf
Books:
Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard? edited by
B.
Blake Levitt (2001)
Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette by Robert Kane, Ph.D. (2001)
Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to
Protect
Ourselves, by B. Blake Levitt (2002)
About the Author: Margaret Meade Glaser has a
Masters in psychology and school psychology and serves as chair of Public
Relations on the Board of Directors for the Electromagnetic Radiation Network.
She explains how her interest in high frequency radiations developed: As
the daughter of an electromagnetically savvy design engineer and a public
health nursing administrator, it is not too surprising that I would be keyed
into this issue, although it actually happened by accident!
A cellular provider selected the chimney of our
vintage condo building as a prime site for an antenna array two years ago and
sought to negotiate a lucrative contract with our condo board to lease space.
As a matter of course, I suggested we look a little further than the company's
claims of complete safety before signing on the dotted line for twenty years.
The more we looked, the more disturbing the picture. I realized there was a
lot of information that was not reaching people in this country. After we
defeated the antenna on our property, I joined the national EMR Network for
information and support, and was eventually asked to join the Board of
Directors. I have acted as Chair of Public Relations since.
In the course of my two years with the Network, I have been involved in
Washington lobby efforts, assisted in a Congressional Briefing, participated
in forums on wireless health issues, and met with researchers, government
officials, attorneys, journalists, and grassroots organizers from around the
world. In the Chicago area, I give talks and presentations on this topic.
As a school psychologist, I am particularly concerned with the impact of this
proliferating radiation on young children, from exposure to cell phones,
cordless phones, neighborhood (or even school property) antennas, wireless
internet (WLANs) in classrooms, and an array of other wireless devices.
Back to top of page
Consumer
Reports
Click on the link below, or copy and paste it
into your browser:
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id =299629
Home page:
http://www.consumerreports.org/
Back to top of page
The Dark Side of Wireless Technology
Sheila Rogers, editor of Latitudes
This account, obtained by
interviewing the mother of this family, has all the makings of a documentary.
The name of the cell phone company and the source is withheld while the family
looks for a lawyer willing to take the case (see note).
Meredith and her husband
were dairy farmers on over 150 acres of rolling green land that had
been passed down for generations. They had grown to love the simple lifestyle
that came with hard work, fresh air, and farming in the Midwest. They and
their four children enjoyed good health and happy days.
When the cell
phone tower was erected twelve years ago they weren’t too concerned, though
they were certainly not pleased that it was just over the property line on the
adjoining land and only 800 feet from their house. It was an eyesore, but they
were assured it was perfectly safe. “It’s like a 100-watt light bulb,” the
company often told people.
“We were
naïve,” says Meredith. “Over the next few months, we watched as our herd that
grazed near the tower became emaciated and agitated—a change from their
normally fat and contented state. The whole herd developed rough coats. The
vet was puzzled, but blood work produced no answers.”
Meanwhile, within six months
the parents noticed changes in their children. There were skin rashes—unusual,
raised “hot spots.” They had recurrent kidney infections. The youngest two
kids became dramatically hyperactive, and the older ones complained of foggy
thinking and concentration problems. Then sleep disturbances crept in.
Meredith, in her early thirties, began to develop joint problems.
“Everyone’s
symptoms were worse,” she explained, “on foggy or rainy days. I since learned
this was because the moisture increases the electrical conductivity. There
were times when my preschool child would literally spin in circles.” One day
she discovered that their tower had become the “hub” for the entire state. “We
buried cows that winter,” she recalls.
Searching for
solutions and options, they tracked down a researcher at the Environmental
Protection Agency, who gave her the first useful advice they’d had. He told
her that as a government official he should reassure her that they were safe.
But with his “citizen cap” on, he had to say that they should move
immediately.
With hopes of returning
one
day, they sold the herd but had someone keep the
heifers for them. Within two to three months of moving to an electrically
clean area in upper Michigan, health problems began to subside. After a year,
they all were feeling strong once more. The only problem was that their farm
was unattended, they were out of money, and they desperately needed to farm
again.
About this
time, they spoke with new owners of the cell phone company. The staff
expressed disdain for flagrant safety lapses of the previous tower owners. The
family was assured that if they returned, everything would now be fine.
Excited at the news, they went back to their farm.
It was not
long before symptoms returned. The children lost weight and the girls began to
lose hair. Meredith was pregnant but not gaining weight. That son was
unfortunately born with anomalies—birth defects that fit no particular
syndrome. Neighbors also had complaints; the suicide rate increased in town,
and unusual seizures were reported.
Now, some
calves were born with front legs shorter than the back and with deformed
hooves; some had large tumors—one tumor was three feet in diameter and the
calf could not be delivered alive, even with a C-section. And the tumors were
not typical to the species.
They had been back for three
years when a
pediatrician saw the son’s birth defects, heard the
story, and
told them to leave town. Why had they stayed so long? “We had to make a
living. And somehow, when it’s gradually happening, you’re in denial—you don’t
see it for what it is,” Meredith said.
They managed
to buy a farm in a safe area and start anew. “My husband insisted we take the
cows with us, and within three days they were chewing their cuds—something
they hadn’t done for years.” The young boy, though, remains electrically
sensitive and hyperactive. Meredith says that if he is within two and a half
miles of a tower he develops flushed skin. Computer terminals and fluorescent
lights in stores increase symptoms. He has food sensitivities, and damp
weather continues to affect him.
And the
land—what happened to the farm? Meredith sighs. “It just sits there. Empty.
Selling the farm has not been considered. Should we let this happen to someone
else?” End
Back to top of page
A Possible Association Between
Fetal/neonatal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the
Increased Incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders
Robert C. Kane, Ph.D.
Abstract—Recently
disclosed epidemiological data indicate a dramatic increase in the incidence
of autism spectrum disorders. Previously, the incidence of autism has been
reported as 4-5 per 10,000 children. The most recent evidence indicates an
increased incidence of about 1 per 500 children. However, the etiology of
autism is yet to be determined. The recently disclosed data suggest a possible
correlation between autism incidence and a previously unconsidered
environmental toxin. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that
radiofrequency radiation is a biologically active substance. It is also
readily acknowledged that human exposures to radiofrequency radiation have
become pervasive during the past twenty years, whereas such exposures were
uncommon prior to that time. It is suggested that fetal or neo-natal exposures
to radiofrequency radiation may be associated with an increased incidence of
autism.
__________
Introduction
Prior
to the twentieth century the only sources of radiofrequency (RF) radiation
were the hyper-low levels of RF energy originating from our sun and the even
lower levels of extra-solar RF noise. It is in this environment of low-level
RF radiation that life on earth developed and exists to this day.
During
the 1940s, primarily as a result of research and development performed as a
part of the war effort, industry and the military establishment were
successful in bringing the state of RF energy generation to maturity. From
that time onward we have witnessed a broad range of commercial RF energy
product applications including, most notably, broadcast FM radio, radar,
television, public-service mobile communication transceivers, residential
microwave ovens, and the portable cellular telephone.
Initially, the contribution of each radiating device was imperceptible when
weighed against the background of incoming solar radiation. However, over the
span of decades the number of terrestrial RF radiation sources, now counted in
the billions, has increased to the degree that, presently, the base radiation
level is many thousands of times higher than from solar RF energy impinging on
the earth.
Notwithstanding the proliferation of RF radiation sources during the early
decades of the “radiofrequency age”, the 1940s through the 1970s, humans were
seldom exposed to RF radiation at levels that might cause concern. Since the
late 1970s a number of commercial products have become ubiquitous, which
provide human exposures to levels of RF radiation that are significantly
higher than either of the previous or present background levels. Research
reports indicate that RF exposure levels, typically encountered from some
commercial products, may induce alterations of biological processes or damage
to the genome 1 – 13.
Concurrently the incidence of autism diagnoses demonstrates a pronounced,
approximately linear, nearly three-fold increase occurring during the last
twenty years. “The question as to when autism begins in any child
remains to be answered. Some studies provide support for a prenatal or
perinatal origin for autism.” 14 For several decades prior to 1980
autism incidence remained essentially invariant; reportedly at about one
diagnosed case per 2000 children. Byrd has reported a present autism
incidence of about one per 700 children.
RF
radiation sources have become commonplace in the personal human environment
from approximately 1980 to the present. Operation of an RF radiation source
such as a two-way radio or a cell phone exposes the operator to levels of RF
radiation shown to be biologically active. Operation of an RF radiation
source also exposes others, in the near proximity, to similarly biologically
active levels of electromagnetic field intensities 15.
Some of
the known effects of exposure to RF radiation include cognitive impairment
16, memory deficit 17, EEG modifications 18,
DNA damage 3 - 12, chromosome aberrations 6,
micronucleus formation 7, 22, fetal malformation 1, 2,
increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier 19, 23, altered
cellular calcium efflux 20 and altered cell proliferation 21.
RF
radiation exposures from residential microwave ovens are, typically, on the
order of 1 milli-watt per cm2. RF radiation exposures from cell
phones range from about 0.1 to 10.0 milli-watt per cm2. Portable
two-way radios provide similar exposure levels. The scientific literature
confirms that RF radiation exposures, at levels more than 1,000
times lower than described immediately preceding, or on the order of 1.0
micro-watt per cm2, induce significant changes in biological
processes or molecular repair mechanisms 12.
During gestation
the possibility of unobservable embryonic and fetal damage is increased as
mothers-to-be utilize and are exposed to the emissions from RF radiation
devices. Researchers have emphatically reported that an embryo or fetus
should not be exposed to radiofrequency radiation such as that emitted by the
portable cell phone or portable telephone. One particular reason to avoid RF
radiation exposure during pregnancy is that an embryo or fetus may not be
fully protected by amniotic fluid for extended periods of time due to the
natural movement of the embryo or fetus within the womb. Secondly, the pelvic
structure promotes deep RF radiation penetration and that radiation can be
absorbed within the developing embryo or fetus.
Other researchers
have postulated that there may exist a previously unidentified environmental
toxin associated with the observed increased incidence of autism. For
example, the works of Byrd (California - 1999) 14, Bertrand 24,
(New Jersey - 2001), Taylor 25, (United Kingdom – 1999), and
Chakrabarti & Fombonne 26, (United Kingdom – 2001) clearly support
the proposition that the identified increased incidence of autism has an
origin at about 1980: an increased incidence that has its origin established
at the very time the personal RF radiation devices came into popular use –
about 1980. We propose that RF radiation, a new form of exposure of the human
embryo, fetus, and infant, and an acknowledged environmental toxin under many
exposure conditions, may be associated with the increased incidence of
autism. This proposition is further based on the fact that these radiating
products are periodically and typically utilized in the embryonic, fetal and
neonatal environment. RF radiation is the only known toxin, exposure to which
is wholly correlated with the repeatedly documented increased incidence of
autism: now reported by at least some researchers as greater than 1 per 100
newborn.
Correspondence
to: Robert C. Kane, The Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists, P.O.
Box 133, Blanchardville, Wisconsin 53516-0133. FAX: 608 523-6500; E-mail:
rkane@tds.net
References
1 Berman E, Kinn JB, and Carter HB, Observations
of mouse fetuses after irradiation with 2.45 GHz microwaves, Health Physics,
35, pp. 791-801, 1978.
2 Kaplan J, Polson P, Rebert C, Lunan K, and
Gage M, Biological and behavioral effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure
to 2450-MHz electromagnetic radiation in the squirrel monkey, Radio Science,
17(5S), pp. 135S-144S, 1982.
3 Sagripanti JL, and Swicord ML, DNA structural
changes caused by microwave radiation, Int J Radiat Biol, 50(1), pp.
47-50, 1986.
4 Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, and
Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by
mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for
cancer and blood-brain barrier-related effects, Differentiation, 70,
pp. 120 – 129, 2002.
5 Sagripanti JL, Swicord ML, and Davis CC,
Microwave effects on plasmid DNA, Radiation Research 110, pp. 219-231,
1987.
6 Fucic A, Garaj-Vrhovac V, Skara M, and
Dimitrovic B, X-rays, microwaves and vinyl chloride monomer: their clastogenic
and aneugenic activity, using the micronucleus assay on human lymphocytes,
Mutat Res 282(4), pp. 265-271, 1992.
7 Maes A, Verschaeve L, Arroyo A, De Wagter C,
and Vercruyssen L, In vitro cytogenetic effects of 2450 MHz waves on human
peripheral blood lymphocytes, Bioelectromagnetics 14(6), pp. 495-501,
1993.
8 Sarkar S, Ali S, and Behari J, Effect of low
power microwave on the mouse genome: a direct DNA analysis, Mutat Res
320, (1-2), pp. 141-147, 1994.
9 Lai H, and Singh NP, Acute low-intensity
microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells,
Bioelectromagnetics, 16(3), pp. 207-210, 1995.
10 Lai H, and Singh NP, Single- and double-strand
DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation, Int J Radiat Biol, 69(4), pp. 513-521,
1996.
11 Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D,
Finnie J, and Harris AW, Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to
pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res, 147(5), pp.
631-640, 1997.
12 Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones
RA, Campbell-Beachler M, and Haggren W, DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid
cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro,
Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 45, pp. 103-110, 1998.
13 Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Pahlson A, Hallquist
A, Ionizing radiation, cellular telephones and the risk of brain tumours.
Europ J Cancer Prevent 10, pp. 523-529, 2001.
14 Byrd RS, Sigman M. Bono M, et al, Report to
the legislature on the principal findings from the epidemiology of autism in
California: a comprehensive pilot study, M.I.N.D. Institute, University of
California, Davis, 2002
15 Bawin SM, Kaczmarek LK, and Adey WR, Effects
of modulated VHF fields on the central nervous system, Ann NY Acad. Sci,
247, pp. 74-81, 1975.
16 Chiang H, Yao GD, Fang QS, Wang KQ, Lu DZ,
Zhou YK, Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. J.
Bioelectricity 8:127-131, 1989.
17 Lai H, Horita A, and Guy AW, Microwave
irradiation affects radial-arm maze performance in the rat,
Bioelectromagnetics 15(2), pp. 95-104, 1994.
18 von Klitzing L, Low-frequency pulsed
electromagnetic fields influence EEG of man, Phys. Medica, 11, pp.
77-80, 1995.
19 Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL,
and Persson BR, Permeability of the blood-brain radiation on cytolytic T
lymphocytes, FASEB J , 10(8), pp. 913-919, 1996.
20 Paul Raj R, Behari J, and Rao AR, Effect of
amplitude modulated RF radiation on calcium ion efflux and ODC activity in
chronically exposed rat brain, Indian J Biochem Biophys, 36(5), pp.
337-340, 1999.
21 Cleary SF, Du Z, Cao G, Liu LM, and McCrady C,
Effect of isothermal radiofrequency barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic
radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc
Res Tech, 27(6), pp. 535-542,
1994.
22 d'Ambrosio G, Massa R, Scarfi MR,
and Zeni O, Cytogenetic damage in human lymphocytes following GMSK phase
modulated microwave exposure. Bioelectromagnetics, 23, pp. 7-13, 2002.
23 Persson BR, Salford LG, and Brun A, Blood-brain
barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in
wireless communication, Wireless Network 3, pp. 455-461, 1997.
24 Bertrand J, Mars A, Boyle C, Bove F,
Yeargin-Allsopp M, Decoufle P., Prevalence of Autism in a United States
Population: The Brick Township, New Jersey Investigation, Pediatrics,
108 (5), pp. 1155-1161, Nov. 2001.
25 Taylor B, Miller E, Farringdon et al, MMR
Vaccine and Autism: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association,
Lancet, 353, pp. 2026-2029, 1999.
26 Chakrabarti S, & Fombonne E, Pervasive
Developmental Disorders in Preschool Children, JAMA, 285 (24), 2001.
Back to top of page
A
Physician Petition: the Freiburger Appeal
Hundreds of physicians have been
signing a petition that raises health concerns over mobile phone technology:
base stations, mobile phones and digital cordless phones. The appeal states:
We have observed, in recent years,
a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:
-
Learning, concentration, and
behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
-
Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure,
ever harder to influence with medications
-
Heart rhythm disorders
-
Heart attacks and strokes among an
increasingly younger population
-
Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g.
Alzheimer–s) and epilepsy
-
Cancerous afflictions: leukaemia, brain
tumours
Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders,
often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:
-
Headaches, migraines
-
Chronic exhaustion
-
Inner agitation
-
Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
-
Tinnitus
-
Susceptibility to infection
-
Nervous and connective tissue pains,
for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms
The Freiburger Appeal states: "We
can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, far too often do we
observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted
areas or apartments. Too often does a long-term disease or affliction
improve or disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination
of HFMR pollution in the patient's environment. Too often are our
observations confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity.
On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile
communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally
extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the
fundamental triggers for this fatal development. One can no longer evade these
pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemical/physical
influences, stress the body–s immune system, and can bring the body–s
still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children,
adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk".
For more information/source: Mast
Sanity, Affiliated to the Campaign for Planning Sanity
http://www.mastsanity.org; A copy of the 'Freiburger
Appeal' can be obtained from the web site.
Back to top of page
Latitudes is a quarterly
publication of the Association for Comprehensive NeuroTherapy (ACN). Every
issue includes information on non-toxic approaches to autism, Tourette
syndrome, learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity.
Subscription: $85 professional, $45 regular, $22 hardship/student. Order
online:
www.Latitudes.org or or fax address and credit card information to (561)
798-9820; checks can be made payable to ACN and sent to Latitudes
Subscriptions, PO Box 210848, Royal Palm Beach, FL 33421-0848
